When you are doing your Spring clean up, here is an opportunity to get rid of some of your stuff without sending them to a landfill, which in turn will help the environment. Here are the most important things to remember.

1. We will take anything with a plug-
2. We will also take old unusable torn clothes, sheets, pillowcases, bath mats etc. These are recycled into rags for mechanics etc. and you save the landfill.

3. You do not even have to leave your car,- just load up all you have, drive into L'Amoreaux Community Centre, the Lions will unload your contribution and you drive out.

THE FOLLOWING WAS PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT A SYMPOSIUM ON CHEDDI JAGAN ON THE INVITATION BY THE INDIAN ARRIVAL COMMITTEE (IAC). HOWEVER I WAS SUBSEQUENTLY UNINVITED FOR REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO THAT BODY AND ITS FRIENDS.
WHAT A SHAME!!

Nowadays, there are many in our midst who tend to shy away from engaging in robust, constructive discussion, debate or polemic on the question of ideology.

Such individuals or groups of individuals tend to seek refuge in what they describe as a ‘pragmatic approach’ which in effect, shuns objective truth by the criterion of practice and opts for what meets the subjective interests of the individual or group of individuals.

They do so precisely for the sake of preserving their personal or group
self-interests and by not wanting to offend those who espouse a radically different ideology basically, for opportunistic reasons in their quest for political power.

The world in which we live is a global village.The main centers of economic, financial and military power are governed by politicians, military men and financial
oligarchs who, beyond the shadow of a doubt, adhere to collective and individual ideological beliefs of different hues and shades.

This applies to a) In China where recently President Xi was installed as ‘President for life.’

b) In Russia where president Putin has established electoral laws and regulations that effectively debars any other political party from challenging his party’s presidential candidate.

c) In the USA where President Trump fires anyone willy nilly so long as they do not share his ideological beliefs.

d) In the European Union where ideological differences prevail on the hot issue of refugees, Brexit and Turkey’s admission to the Union.

And finally, e) on the Korean Peninsula where ideological, political and military views are critical in determining the way forward.

In sum, in all these developments, it is fundamentally ideology that is the driving force in politics ‘a concentrated form of economics.’

Ideology is a system of political,legal, ethical , aesthetical , religious and philosophical views and ideas.

Ideology is part of the superstructure which rests on the economic base. It therefore reflects economic relations.

The development of ideology is ultimately determined by the economy, though ideology possess a certain relative independence from economics.

When the APNU+AFC decided to close the sugar industry and to throw thousands of sugar workers on to the breadlines they used economic and financial arguments to justify their decision. However, it was their anti-working class ideology that was the underlying ‘outside’ motivating force.

The act of closing down the sugar industry was, by its very nature, consistent with the anti-working class ideology of a bureaucratic military class of people who currently weilds political power in Guyana.

This brings us back to the well established narrative that economic decisions usually find expression in the ideology of those in power as well as those out power since, those out of power, would naturally advance alternative economic measures to those of the ruling elite.

Those alternative economic measures would find expression in the ideological beliefs of those who advance their own alternative economic proposals.

Every individual or social class, irrespective of their relationship to the means of production say, a worker or proprietor of a factory; of distribution, say a worker or owner of a distribution network of soft drinks; or exchange, say an employee or owner of a bank; would be ideologically conscious of their economic conditions due to their relationship to the productive or services sector, irrespective of the level at which they function.

Under these conditions, it is not unusual to find from time to time, a clash of contending ideologies within organizations in the wider society and even between and within countries.

In the case of the latter, witness recent developments between the Trump administration and China,in respect to the imminent trade war on steel and aluminum; between Britain and Russia over the alleged use of nerve gas on a former Russian spy and his daughter and between Israel and Iran over the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East.

While these occurrences may appear as contending economic interests of individuals,groups of people and countries, their overarching motivation would be of an ideological nature.

Ideologically, our globalized world, is characterized by the emergence of two dominant ideologies; the neo-liberal and the populist ideologies.

And while these two ideologies have many elements in common such as emphasis of the market place, minimum state intervention and the sanctity of private property they depart on certain issues such as safeguarding the safety and freedom of the individual.

The populist ideology basically establishes a framework of a ‘pure people versus a corrupt elite’ who upholds an archaic establishment that rots in outdated customs and practices( Shades of Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’).

Moreover, this rather ‘thin ideology’ branded populism, finds expression in all sorts of ‘thick’ ideologies with moving components such as pro-socialist,anti-capitalist, nationalism, anti-imperialism and racism.

On the other hand,populism of the Left or the Rightist is bad news for the rights of political minorities,established organizational principles, and the rule of law.
In that sense, populism of both the Right and the Left are potentially anti-democratic and authoritarian since both are viewed by those who are spell bound by it as the ‘sole legitimate’ representative of the people. At the sametime, its opponents are deemed irrelevant and illegitimate, who should marginalized and even destroyed.

This is a good example which shows that ideologies are neither limited in their boundaries nor linear in their vertical or horizontal descent or ascent.

I again emphasize, that while ideology is an independent trend that knows no bounds irrespective of its shade or hue,it’s origins are to be found in the economic base on which it rests as an integral part of the superstructure.

When Karl Marx wrote in his Eighteenth Brumaire Louis Bonaparte that:
“Men make their own history,but they do not make it just as they please;they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances given and transmitted from the past...” he was referring to the historiography and evolution of ideology as well as the changes that would affect its contours and emphasis but not the core concepts which remain intact and represent the changing parts of an ideology.

Thus, ideology may develop and change over time.

Under specific conditions, ideological rifts may emerge in political parties. Such rifts, if not managed skillfully has the potential to undo principles that have stood the test of time and ultimately, can result in the break up of parties and the emergence and dominance of a populist approach, pragmatism and a neo-liberal ideology.

This is precisely what occurred in 1955 with the split in the PPP. That split was not racial it was fundamentally ideologically motivated.

This brings us to ideology and Cheddi Jagan.

Established in 1946, the Political Affairs Committee (PAC),forerunner of the PPP, was committed to the propagation of “scientific socialism.”

4 years later, the PPP came into existence. The party was led by Marxists, but with a large section of the leadership being non-Marxists.

The party declared itself “ a revolutionary national party dedicated to end foreign domination, to transform the economy and to bring about social justice.”

In essence, the party had now expressed where it stood ideologically.

It declared in favour of a broad-based but patriotic ideological orientation with a view to ensuring that ideological rigidity and ethnicity do not become divisive factors in the struggle to achieve national unity and independence.

Because the PPP’s ideological platform reflected the aims and aspirations of the working people its ideology became a material force that gripped the masses resulting in mobilization and action that eventuated in the winning of government in 1953,1957 and 1961. And much later, from 1992 to 2015.

While Jagan was in opposition it was ‘Straight Talk’ ideologically, however long before assuming office in 1992 his ideology began evolve and assumed a progressive, national democratic character.

The collapse of the USSR and with it, the socialist block of countries in Eastern Europe must have had a tremendous impact on Jagan’s ideological orientation.

What is true however is that the core concepts based on the ‘three sources and key components parts’ of his Marxist beliefs remained intact and was reflected in his masterful application of scientific theory when he brought into life the civic component of the PPP electoral alliance known as the PPP/C.

In effect, Jagan had returned to the earlier period of the PPP when it had adopted a broad-based, but patriotic ideological orientation, shunning ideological rigidity and exclusivity.

Further, being an internationalist thinker and practitioner, Jagan in extrapolating from his domestic praxis of ideological flexibility , inclusiveness, and partnership formulated the concept of a New Global Order which was eventually adopted by CARICOM, the Commonwealth, the Rio Group and the United Nations.

Having won government in 1992, Jagan advanced the need for the new government to ‘walk between the raindrops’ and to exert every effort to ‘strike a balance between transformation and conformism.’

At the sametime, Jagan made it clear to the businesses community and other social and political forces that his new government ‘would not dominate nor would it want to be dominated.’

In other words, while holding to the core concepts of his ideological beliefs, the contours and emphasis of whichhad evolved overtime, Jagan sought on the one hand, to transform Guyana’s economy, while at the sametime conforming to the new global realities that had emerged with neo-liberalism emerging as the dominant ideology world-wide.

Jagan’s ideological rebirth was to find expression in his call for the establishment of a ‘National Democratic State administered by a plural
democratic government with liberal
and humane socialist beliefs and in partnership with the whole people for the common good of Guyana.’

To the world at large he made it clear that while foreign capital and investments, preferably in joint ventures were welcomed; ‘our economic, social and environmental objectives must be fully recognized, and due respect is given for our laws, our independence and sovereignty.’

Anyone who is disillusioned with Jagan’s ideology and do not see it as the future is bound to wage war against it.
Their short-sightedness will eventually find them ideologically on the side of the financial and business elites and eventually in the camp of the anti-working class, authoritarian proponents.

Unless there is a genuine, rules-based partnership characterized by mutual respect and understanding that is critical for confidence-building between the proponents and followers of various ideologies the partnership/ camaraderie will fail.

The PPP has been the quintessence of ideological principles in Guyana.

Every printed and spoken word of Cheddi Jagan was impregnated with concepts based on progressive, forward-thinking scientific theory and practice.

His life work was neither stagnant nor sterile. On the contrary, it was a guide to action.

Mar 20, 2018

A cricket anecdote about Neville and what he was capable of:
Circa 1957 or 1958 opening the bowling for G.C.C.in a Case Cup
match against E.I.C.C. at their grounds on Camp St., Neville clean
bowled, arguably the greatest batsman Guyana has ever produced,
one Rohan B. Kanhai. Rohan had just returned from his first tour
of England and there was a huge crowd of fans to see him bat.

A friend of mine who witnessed the proceedings informed me that
the crowd soon dispersed after Kanhai's departure.

Kanhai was in my humble opinion, one of the greatest batsmen the
world has seen.

Neville was indeed a fine swing bowler in addition to being a
gentleman.

Lecturer
in Law, School of Law and Criminology, University of West London

NTRODUCTIONIn a number of Commonwealth jurisdictions, the law provides for a
defendant in a criminal trial to make an unsworn statement from the
dock. This is an old English Common Law right, which is still upheld in
some states, even though it was abolished in England and Wales in 1982.This essay demonstrates the devastating exercise of this right by a co-defendant in the murder trial of R v George & Another
in Reading Crown Court, England, in 1977, where both defendants were
convicted of burglary and murder, and in which the author was the then
practising solicitor instructed to represent George. In this essay, the author also endeavours to point out to the
following CARICOM and other jurisdictions, including Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, and Jamaica, that
the right of a defendant to make an unsworn dock statement is an
anachronism which should be abolished, as the potential for ‘cut-throat’
defences, gross abuses and miscarriages of justice, is immense.THE LAW ON UNSWORN STATEMENTS IN VARIOUS CARICOM STATESThe following are examples of the law providing the right of an
accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock, applicable in the
CARICOM states of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica,
Grenada, Guyana, and Jamaica. Antigua and Barbuda: Section 6(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 155, provides -

“Person charged and wife or husband a competent witness

Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

Barbados: Section 22 of the Evidence Act, Cap 121, provides -

“
Competence and Compellability of witness …

Unsworn evidence in criminal proceedings

22(1) In criminal proceedings, an accused may give unsworn evidence.

(2) An accused who gives unsworn evidence may not also give sworn
evidence unless there are special circumstances and the court gives
leave.

(3) In giving unsworn evidence, the accused may read from a statement in writing and may use notes.

(4) After unsworn evidence has been given, the attorney-at-law may,
with the leave of the court, direct the accused’s attention to matters
as to which the accused has not given unsworn evidence or as to which
the accused might wish to give further unsworn evidence.

(5) An accused who has given unsworn evidence shall not be cross-examined.

(6) Unsworn evidence given by an accused may not be used for or against any other accused.

(7) Subsections (5) and (6) do not apply where the accused gives both sworn and unsworn evidence.

(8) Without affecting any other application

(a) of the Perjury Act, Cap. 142; and

(b) of the offence of perverting the course of justice,

section 3 of that Act and the common law respecting the fabrication of
false evidence apply in relation to unsworn evidence as they apply in
relation to sworn evidence.”

Belize: Section 58(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 95, provides -

“Competency and Privilege of Witnesses …

nothing in this Act shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

Dominica: There appears to be reliance on the old English common law
right for a defendant to make an unsworn statement from the dock. Grenada: Section 119(5) of the Evidence Act, Cap 92, provides -

“Competency as witnesses of parties to civil suit and their wives or husbands …

Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

Guyana: Section 52(h) of The Evidence Act, Cap. 5.03, provides –

“nothing in this Act … shall affect any right of the person charged … to make a statement without being sworn.”

Jamaica: Section 9(h) of the Evidence Act provides -

“Competency of Witnesses …

Nothing in this Act shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

In the British Overseas' Territory of Montserrat, Section 6(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 2.08, provides -

“Person charged and wife or husband a competent witness -

Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

Notwithstanding this provision, however, in a most remarkable decision, the Hon. Justice Iain Morley QC in R v Dwayne Irish
in the High Court of Montserrat on 8th November 2016, relied on the
absence of reference to the unsworn statement in the provisions in the
Criminal Procedure Code No 2, to rule that unsworn statements would "no
longer be permitted in criminal trials in Montserrat":-

"[12] It follows in my judgment that the deliberate omission
from CPC No 2 of the ability to make an unsworn statement means that an
unsworn statement is no longer permissible.

[13] Mr Brandt argued that there needs to be specific language in
statute or in the CPC that an unsworn
statement is no longer permitted, on the

principle that it has long been allowed,

should not be rendered impermissible lightly, and what is not expressly prohibited is permissible.

I reject this submission. The deliberate omission of the clause
clearly renders an unsworn statement henceforth impermissible.

[14] This is in keeping with its abolition in most Common Law
jurisdictions for the understandable reason it allows evidence which
cannot be tested by cross-examination. Moreover, the unsworn statement
emerged in Common Law prior to 1898 at a time when it was not
permissible for a defendant to give evidence in his or her own defence,
for fear swearing an oath, and then lying, would imperil his or her
soul, leading to eternal damnation. Such times are long over, and so too
the need for unsworn statements.

[15] For reasons of the above analysis of CPC No 2, unsworn statements
will no longer be permitted in criminal trials on Montserrat."
(The Hon. Justice Iain Morley QC, High Court Judge https://www.eccourts.org/regina-v-dwayne-irish/
)

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Walker [1974] 1 WLR
1090, (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Cross, Lord Salmon and Sir
Eric Sachs) on an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, Lord
Salmon, in delivering the judgment of the Board of the Privy Council,
gave guidance on a judge’s direction to the jury regarding the value of
an unsworn statement of an accused:-

“The Court of Appeal has indicated that it would be in the public
interest if this Board were to give some guidance on the “objective
evidential value of an unsworn statement” by an accused, since it has
for some time been the standard practice in Jamaica to keep the accused
out of the witness box. Much depends on the particular circumstances of
each case. ... There are however cases in which the accused makes an
unsworn statement in which he seeks to contradict or explain away
evidence which has been given against him or inferences as to his intent
or state of mind which would be justified by that evidence. In such
cases (and their Lordships stress that they are speaking only of such
cases) the judge should in plain and simple language make it clear to
the jury that the accused was not obliged to go into the witness box but
that he had a completely free choice either to do so or to make an
unsworn statement or to say nothing. The judge could quite properly go
on to say to the jury that they may perhaps be wondering why the accused
had elected to make an unsworn statement; that it could not be because
he had any conscientious objection to taking the oath since, if he had,
he could affirm. Could it be that the accused was reluctant to put his
evidence to the test of cross-examination? If so, why? He had nothing to
fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from
these by his own counsel and by the court. The jury should always be
told that it is exclusively for them to make up their minds whether the
unsworn statement has any value, and, if so, what weight should be
attached to it; that is for them to decide whether the evidence for the
prosecution has satisfied them of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, and that in considering their verdict they should give the
accused's unsworn statement only such weight as they may think it
deserves.” (Lord Salmon, at p. 1095)

This decision is also binding on those states for which the Privy
Council is also the highest Court of Appeal, e.g. Antigua and Barbuda
and Grenada.R v GEORGE: A miscarriage of justice?The case of R v Andrew Hipolite George (1979) 68 Cr App R
210; [1979] Crim LR 172; The Times, Oct 31, 1978, was one of a number of
cases which caused some consternation in England. The trial was held at
Reading Crown Court before Mr Justice Thesiger and a jury. The appeal
was heard in the Court of Appeal before Lord Chief Justice Widgery, Lord
Justice Bridge, and Mr Justice Wien.The brief facts of the case were that there was a burglary of a house
in North London which involved the binding and gagging of an elderly
woman, causing her death from a heart attack. Leroy Gilpin, (LG) aged 25
and Andrew George (AG) aged 19, were charged with burglary and murder.
LG was the deceased's former next door neighbour. LG pleaded guilty to
burglary and not guilty to murder. LG’s palm print had been found at the
deceased’s house, but there was no forensic evidence against AG. AG was
Educationally Subnormal. He pleaded not guilty to burglary and murder. Near the end of the defence case, LG made an unsworn statement from
the dock. He said that AG broke into the victim's house - AG had put
socks on his hands - AG opened the front door and let him (LG) in - AG
tied the woman up – He (LG) cut the rope, tried to let the woman go,
left AG in the house to release the woman - AG was the last to leave the
house – AG later told LG that he had let the woman go - ...The jurors were directed by Mr Justice Thesiger in words to the effect:

"Make what you will of the statement as regards the Defendant LG who
made the statement, but entirely disregard what you heard about the
co-defendant AG - it is not regarded as evidence to weigh in the scales
against AG ..."

Once the jury had heard the damaging evidence, however, it would
have been practically impossible for them to engage in the mental
gymnastics required to disregard the damning statement made by the older
man, LG, which had incriminated the younger person, AG. It is submitted that this would all have been very confusing for a
jury, as the statement had practically the same effect as sworn
evidence. The 25-yr-old man, LG, had incriminated AG (an Educationally
Subnormal 19-yr-old), and said that he was the ringleader. The damaging statement of LG had an enormous impact on everyone in
the court. It was devastating for AG and his legal team. Of course, AG’s
counsel were hampered and could not cross examine LG, as his statement
was unsworn. During a weekend adjournment, immediately after the statement had
been made, AG’s father went to visit LG and had a conversation with him.
Following that meeting, AG’s counsel, Mr Daniel Hollis QC and Mr Samuel
Knox- Hooke, made application to call evidence in rebuttal of the
statement of LG. Mr Justice Thesiger refused the application, however,
on the ground that evidence in rebuttal could not be admitted, as the
unsworn statement from the dock by LG was not evidence. It is submitted that in view of the obvious prejudice which had been
caused to AG’s case, Mr Justice Thesiger should have severed the
indictment and ordered a separate trial for AG. The Commentary in the
Criminal Law Review Report on the case suggests:

"the only alternative would be to discharge the jury from giving a verdict against G and to have him retried separately."
([1979] Crim LR 173).

Lord Chief Justice Widgery, in delivering the judgment of the Court
of Appeal to refuse Andrew George leave to appeal, stated as follows:-

"But one thing which can be said with certainty is that the problem of
a statement from the dock so far as a co-accused is concerned is
exactly the same as the problem which arises when a co-accused has made
some statement not in Court which damages a co-accused.

We think ... that we should treat these two situations alike. In each
case the handicap imposed upon the defendant is that he cannot
cross-examine the so-called witness. The more one looks at these two
situations the more obvious it becomes that they are on a par."
(Lord Widgery, p. 211)

It is submitted that their Lordships erred in their decision in the
Court of Appeal, when they ruled that the problem of a statement from
the dock was "exactly the same" as the problem which arose when a
co-accused had made some statement not in Court which damaged a
co-accused. The Court decided to treat these two situations "alike" and
said that they were "on a par." Their Lordships may not have taken that
view, however, had they been in court during the trial when LG made his
dramatic and devastating statement which branded AG as the ringleader
and cast the culpability firmly upon him. Their Lordships may well have
agreed that it could not be said to be "on a par" with an out of court
statement which was read in court.The case was well publicised – It was reported in The Times (16 Nov. 1977; 31 October 1978) and in the local press. It was discussed in Michael Cohen's article "The Unsworn Statement From The Dock" [1981] Crim LR 224. The BBC’s 'Rough Justice' Team investigated the case, and Martin Young and Peter Hill wrote a book Rough Justice which was published in 1983 by BBC Ariel Books, ISBN 0563201 29 0. The authors discussed the case in the chapter 'The Boy Who Protested Too Much' (pp. 53-74).REFORMS IN ENGLAND and WALES In 1977 the government had convened the Royal Commission on Criminal
Procedure (Philips Commission, 1977-1981) which recommended the
abolition of the Unsworn Statement in 1981. Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, MP, a leading Queen’s Counsel and an
outstanding Criminal Law practitioner, who had been briefed by the
author in another murder case in 1977 which involved contested
identification evidence, and in which five defendants had been acquitted
(West Indian World Nov/Dec 1977), made a number of observations in
1981, during the debate in the House of Commons on the Royal Commission
on Criminal Procedure:

“On the whole, the report is good. I am pleased that it recommends
the abolition of the practice of making unsworn statements from the
dock. That is a relic of the days when the prisoner was unable to go in
the witness box and give evidence on his own behalf. However, it has
become an abuse, by which the accused can utter all sorts of
uncontroverted and incontrovertible slanders against not only those in
authority, but his own co-defendants. He cannot be cross-examined on
behalf of those co-defendants and he may get away with frightful
liberties. I see no reason why such an absurd anomaly should persist for
another day.”

Mr Patrick Mayhew, then Minister of State, Home Office, observed:

“I have great sympathy with those who call for the abolition of
unsworn statements from the dock. I believe that they are widely
abused.”

Lord Diplock, one of the eminent judges who was a member of the Board of the Privy Council in the case of R v Walker
(1974) noted above, made it clear in the House of Lords debate on the
Criminal Justice Bill on 2 July 1982, that he was firmly in favour of
abolition of the right to make unsworn statements from the dock:

“The abolition of this historical anachronism was, I believe, the
least controversial of the proposals of the Criminal Law Revision
Committee in 1972. Indeed, but for the fact that I understand that one
Member of your Lordships' Committee is to oppose it, I should have
thought that it was devoid of any controversial content. I do not know a
single judge who approves of it. It has nothing to do with the
so-called right of silence. What it has to do with is the right to lie
to the court with impunity.

The Criminal Law Revision Committee said in 1972 that the practice
very seldom occurred. During the 10 years that I was judging criminal
cases—a period which, I fear, finished in 1961- I never remember it
happening. But of recent years it has become a ploy in certain courts—by
no means all of them, I am glad to say. What happens is that it enables
a character destructive cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. It
may be the victim in a case of rape. Often it may be a co-defendant. It
is very frequently the police. After the suggestions have been made to
witnesses and denied, the accused, instead of going into the witness
box, where he would be faced by cross-examination as to the truth of the
allegations and where he would put his character in issue, repeats his
allegations from the safety of the dock, sometimes in a statement
written out for him by counsel.

This right, surviving from the Act of 1898, is not only anachronistic:
it is confusing to the course of justice, as the kind of direction that
has to be given to the jury illustrates, and it is gravely unjust to
innocent witnesses who appear in court. It is not a moment too soon to
abolish it.”
(Lord Diplock, HL Deb 02 July 1982 vol 432 cc 464-539).

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, MP, made further statements in the
House of Commons, during the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill on 21
October 1982:-

“If it were only a question of the balance between the police and the
accused, I would perhaps not be supporting the Government quite as
strongly as I am. However, it is much more than that. It is a question
of the gross unfairness to co-defendants which, to my mind, clearly
pushes down in favour of the abolition of this right. I have been
engaged in many trials in which I have heard some accused person with a
long record abuse his right to make a statement from the dock in order
to attack a co-accused and try to offload the blame upon him, a person
who may ... have no record at all. It is grossly unfair on such a
co-accused when that happens. Neither he nor his counsel can
cross-examine and his co-defendant can get away with murder.

… I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that it is the duty of the
judge to warn the jury that such a statement is not evidence against a
co-accused; and, of course, he is right about that. Such a statement is
not evidence...

it seems an enormous injustice to other persons, who must be presumed
innocent until the jury declare them guilty. That is what we are
discussing. It is not right that such persons should be subjected to and
liable to that sort of attack when they cannot answer back. For that
reason alone all those persons who are interested in the innocence of
persons in the dock should be disposed to remove that anachronism.”
(See Hansard New Clause V HC Deb 21 October 1982 vol 29 cc 584-601, ... ABOLITION OF RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO MAKE UNSWORN STATEMENT)

The 1982 Criminal Justice Act followed, and s. 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 abolished the unsworn statement.REFORMS IN CARICOM JURISDICTIONS The late Dana S. Seetahal, a former Senior Counsel, Law Lecturer at
Hugh Wooding Law School, Council of Legal Education and Senator in
Trinidad and Tobago, wrote:-

“In many jurisdictions, the accused person … has … the right to make
an unsworn statement … from the dock on which he cannot be
cross-examined… The trend in the region is now to abolish this right, as
has been done in England … There is a growing recognition by courts and
the legislature that some accused persons may take advantage of the
fact that they would not be cross-examined on an unsworn statement to
use it to cast imputations on the police and other prosecution witnesses
or speaking of their own good character. The most that the prosecution
can hope for in such cases is to call specific rebuttal evidence to
disprove a defendant’s assertion in the dock of good character …”
(Seetahal, 2014, pp. 231-32).

States and Dependent Territories including Anguilla, The Bahamas, the
British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, St Christopher (St Kitts)
and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Trinidad &
Tobago and the Turks and Caicos Islands, have abolished the right of a
defendant in a criminal trial to make an unsworn statement from the
dock.Some of the leading lawyers in the Caribbean have called for reform
in the law in those states where the right for an accused to make an
unsworn statement from the dock is still retained. The former DPP of
Dominica expressed his opinion in 2013:-

In 2013, Mr Gene Pestaina, the then Director of Public Prosecutions in
Dominica, was of the view that the laws should have been “changed
drastically”. He said that when the three options were given to an
accused person to remain in the prisoner’s dock and say nothing, or to
make an unsworn statement, or to go and give evidence from the witness
stand under oath, and they chose to make an unsworn statement; “a smart
Alick accused” could always give a story for the first time, and it did
not matter what the prosecutor and judge said to the jury about taking
what they had heard “with a grain of salt”, the jury took what the
accused person said as “the gospel truth”.
(See https://www.dominicavibes.dm/news-85173/)

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONIt is hoped that states, including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados,
Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, and others, which still
retain the old anachronistic common law right of the accused to make an
unsworn statement from the dock, or, according to Lord Diplock “the right to lie to the court with impunity”, would heed the lessons to be learned from the case of Andrew Hipolite George.
Andrew had a right to a fair trial, but his co-defendant deprived him
of that right, when he exercised his right to make an unsworn statement
incriminating Andrew. No defendant in the Commonwealth Caribbean or
elsewhere should ever have to be placed in such an invidious position. It is recommended that any states which still retain the right of a
defendant to make an unsworn dock statement, should take immediate steps
to have that right abolished in the interests of fairness and justice.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am very grateful to The Honourable Mr Justice Dennis Morrison,
President of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, for having provided me with
primary source materials on the laws of Jamaica, Belize and the Eastern
Caribbean.REFERENCESCasesR v Andrew Hipolite George (1979) 68 Cr App R 210; [1979] Crim LR 172 (CA England and Wales);R v Dwayne Irish (2016) Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Montserrat, (Mr Justice Iain Morley QC), 8 November.R v Walker [1974] 1 WLR 1090 (Privy Council).StatutesCriminal Justice Act 1982 (England and Wales)Evidence Act, Cap. 155 (Antigua and Barbuda)Evidence Act, Cap. 121 (Barbados)Evidence Act, Cap. 95 (Belize)Evidence Act, Cap. 92 (Grenada)Evidence Act, Cap. 5.03 (Guyana)Evidence Act (Jamaica)Evidence Act, Cap. 02.08 (Montserrat).Parliamentary Debates (UK)Hansard, Criminal Justice Bill, HL Deb. vol. 431 cc 4-72 (7 June 1982)Hansard, Criminal Justice Bill, HC Deb. vol. 432 cc 464-539 (2 July 1982)Hansard, Criminal Procedure (Philips Report) HC Deb. vol 13 cc 527-98 (20 November 1981)BooksSeetahal, D. (2014) Commonwealth Caribbean Criminal Practice and Procedure. 4th Ed. London: Cavendish Publishing.Young, M. and Hill, P. (1983) Rough Justice. London: BBC Ariel Books.Journal ArticleCohen, M. (1981) The Unsworn Statement From The Dock. Criminal Law Review pp. 224 - 234Newspaper ArticlesThe Times (1977) Burglars left woman of 85 to die, prosecution says. 16 November, p. 6.The Times (1978) Law Report Court of Appeal Statement from dock: no evidence in rebuttal by co-accused, Regina v George. 31 October, p. 9.West Indian World (1977) Wembley Murder - Youths Acquitted. Nov/Dec.WebsitesDominica’s laws should change – DPP https://www.dominicavibes.dm/news-85173/ [Date accessed 11 March 2018].R v Dwayne Irish (law report) https://www.eccourts.org/regina-v-dwayne-irish/ [Date accessed 15 March 2018]

Made perfect thus in little space,God called thee to his long embrace,Before the mists of earth could throw,a shadow on thy robe snow.Guide from thy throne.....

Fr. Clement Barraud.

Significant Dates in the History of St.Stanislaus College

* May 1st,1866- Catholic Grammar School started* November 3rd 1866- School moved to Main Street premises* 1868or 69- School moved to Waterloo Street* 1871- School returned to Cathedral Presbytery* 1871- Boarders introduced* 1878- School temporarily closed* 1880- School re-opened* 1897- School moved to site of St. Mary's School, Brickdam* 1907- School moved to present Brickdam site* 1907- Name changed from'Catholic Grammar School' to " Saint Stanislaus College"* 1928- Weld Wing opened* 1942- College Association formed* 1952- Scannell Wing opened* 1966- College celebrates 100th Anniversary* 1972- Hopkinson Wing opened* 1974- Workshop built* 1975- College Farm opened* 1975- Collge becomes co-educational* 1976- College becomes a Govenment School* 1980- College ceases to be run by the Jesuits* 1991- College celebrates 125th anniversary* October 2004 - Board of Govern0rs appointed